Commuting via bike is good for cars and traffic, too

[actungbaby]

Regardless of how you split hairs on the current situation (for the sake of argument lets call it even), his point was if the purpose of more bikes was commuting, and made cleanliness and efficiency a priority for manufacturers, they quickly would be cleaner and more efficient. So assuming that more people on commuters changes commuter bike technology, you could definitely say more people on commuter bikes is better for the environment. Chances are even a commuter's choice from the current lineup would start moving the bike's efficiency well above cars.

yes i like the look the nc 700 athough the cb 500 looks promising too

[James Deuce]

Regardless of how you split hairs on the current situation (for the sake of argument lets call it even), his point was if the purpose of more bikes was commuting, and made cleanliness and efficiency a priority for manufacturers, they quickly would be cleaner and more efficient. So assuming that more people on commuters changes commuter bike technology, you could definitely say more people on commuter bikes is better for the environment. Chances are even a commuter's choice from the current lineup would start moving the bike's efficiency well above cars.

I'm not splitting hairs. A car is cheaper to run, more practical, more versatile. The pool of available motorcyclists is in an ever accelerating decline in Europe, Australasia, and the US, given the rapidly rising average age of riders so the bikes you guys are looking at as "commuters" are actually the "big" tourers and sportsbikes of the developing world's future. They're just getting a burst of limited exposure in developed markets to see how they will potentially be used and how they can be made cheaper to run. You're not going to get more people on bikes in the developed world by making them cheaper to run.

[bogan]

I'm not splitting hairs. A car is cheaper to run, more practical, more versatile. The pool of available motorcyclists is in an ever accelerating decline in Europe, Australasia, and the US, given the rapidly rising average age of riders so the bikes you guys are looking at as "commuters" are actually the "big" tourers and sportsbikes of the developing world's future. They're just getting a burst of limited exposure in developed markets to see how they will potentially be used and how they can be made cheaper to run. You're not going to get more people on bikes in the developed world by making them cheaper to run.

Your cars might be cheaper to run, but on the whole it's not clear cut, I don't see why we need to keep going over this? The bikes I look at as commuters are those chosen specifically for that purpose, things like the NC700 spring to mind. The only reason there is debate as to which is the more efficient type of vehicle is that currently commuters do not choose to ride on commuter bikes. You're probably right about the market not going to pick up the commuter bikes, then again, rising fuel costs might encourage a shift.

The point is the option of cheaper transport on two wheels is there, the fact it is not currently embraced as much as it could be does not change that.

[mstriumph]

Some excellent research out, from the overseas, shows that commuting by motorbike is good for _everyone_.

Cuts down car emissions, traffic jam time, etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...-everyone.html


-----

So, we get this in front of as many people as possible (including councils, perhaps), and get the cagers to stop trying to kill us :P

Unfortunately those that wish to kill us can't read, are immune to reason and are probably weird anyway ...... if they weren't, they'd be riding bikes

[James Deuce]

Your cars might be cheaper to run, but on the whole it's not clear cut, I don't see why we need to keep going over this? The bikes I look at as commuters are those chosen specifically for that purpose, things like the NC700 spring to mind. The only reason there is debate as to which is the more efficient type of vehicle is that currently commuters do not choose to ride on commuter bikes. You're probably right about the market not going to pick up the commuter bikes, then again, rising fuel costs might encourage a shift.

The point is the option of cheaper transport on two wheels is there, the fact it is not currently embraced as much as it could be does not change that.

No one buys efficient motorcycles in our society (as far as the manufacturers are concerned the numbers are so small they may as well be zero), and those that do are viewed as weird, deficient and fundamentally unmanly. If no one buys them, what is the point of producing them? To equip different markets with those motorcycles in future, not our toy obsessed one which is ever more rapidly abandoning motorcycles not only as transport, but toys as well. I think the point is utterly moot, because it ignores the psycho-social aspects of owning and riding a motorcycle and the growing aversion to perceived danger, completely.

Another factor I have seen creep into the motorcycle buying cycle is buying an older Sportsbike rather than upgrading or buying something new, largely in response to having less money. So rather than adopting cheap two-wheeled transport, motorcyclists would generally rather have a less-efficient, and just as expensive to run older motorcycle than an NC700.

The comment about "your cars" in regard to my choice, is also indicative of the Kiwi attitude that your car is a reflection of your virility. I don't believe that there is any real commitment, at least in "middle" NZ to adopt any form of cheap personal transport and motorcycles and cars alike are a projection of your social status. This again renders a 200kg, 48hp motorcycle with half a car engine moot, especially when a Z750, or FZ8 is viewed as a "girl's" bike. Who is going to buy the NC700 ultimately? Someone pretty damn beardy.

The initial supposition is based on two flawed arguments.

1. People will switch to commuting on motorcycles.
2. People want efficient, cheap to run motorcycles.

I'd suggest, fairly disrespectfully too, that neither of those will happen unless it is legislated to be so. As I can't see any developed country's government making people ride motorcycles, ever, I'd suggest that this style of motorcycle is going to be a footnote in the demise of personal transport in "Western" society.

[swbarnett]

No one likes it when I mention that the Ka is significantly cheaper to commute in (a couple of thousand a year) and takes about 10 minutes longer than the bike to cover the same distance in commuter traffic.

In what city was the comparison done? I seriously doubt that any car is cheaper to commute in when it spends an hour sitting on an Auckland motorway compared to 15mins of lane-splitting.

[bogan]

No one buys efficient motorcycles in our society (as far as the manufacturers are concerned the numbers are so small they may as well be zero), and those that do are viewed as weird, deficient and fundamentally unmanly. If no one buys them, what is the point of producing them? To equip different markets with those motorcycles in future, not our toy obsessed one which is ever more rapidly abandoning motorcycles not only as transport, but toys as well. I think the point is utterly moot, because it ignores the psycho-social aspects of owning and riding a motorcycle and the growing aversion to perceived danger, completely.

Another factor I have seen creep into the motorcycle buying cycle is buying an older Sportsbike rather than upgrading or buying something new, largely in response to having less money. So rather than adopting cheap two-wheeled transport, motorcyclists would generally rather have a less-efficient, and just as expensive to run older motorcycle than an NC700.

The comment about "your cars" in regard to my choice, is also indicative of the Kiwi attitude that your car is a reflection of your virility. I don't believe that there is any real commitment, at least in "middle" NZ to adopt any form of cheap personal transport and motorcycles and cars alike are a projection of your social status. This again renders a 200kg, 48hp motorcycle with half a car engine moot, especially when a Z750, or FZ8 is viewed as a "girl's" bike. Who is going to buy the NC700 ultimately? Someone pretty damn beardy.

The initial supposition is based on two flawed arguments.

1. People will switch to commuting on motorcycles.
2. People want efficient, cheap to run motorcycles.

I'd suggest, fairly disrespectfully too, that neither of those will happen unless it is legislated to be so. As I can't see any developed country's government making people ride motorcycles, ever, I'd suggest that this style of motorcycle is going to be a footnote in the demise of personal transport in "Western" society.

People's use of vehicles is a different argument than the vehicle's fuel efficiency. The hypothetical is that more commuters on bikes is a good thing for traffic and fuel efficiency, with that in mind I think its safe to assume the same things will be a major part of the motivation. There are a large number of people on scooters and GNs, so social status can't be that big an issue. Half the non-motorcycling public can only just tell the difference between a harley and a ninja and that is about it, can't see social status as an issue if nobody knows that you ride an efficient bike instead of a performance bike. I mean ffs man, you drive a Ka and base your fuel efficiency conclusion on that, if we can't point to NC700 figures for bikes cos of low social status, then you can't use Ka figures either

So there's no problem with the aforementioned hypothetical statement, however the attitudes you mention (mainly the safety one) will likely prevent the hypothetical from ever making its way to reality; no reason to stop trying to make it happen though.

My comment about your car was just to show that your choices do not reflect the fleet distribution, so your personal experience is skewed and irrelevant; mine is too as a van is higher end fuel usage with my bike more mid range.

[pritch]

The Belgian research ignores the fact that most people don't want to ride a bike (gasp!).

They didn't ignore it, it's completely irrelevant. They were looking at the effect the particular number of bikes had on that stretch of road.

I think Honda and BMW, there may be others, are preparing for the scenario predicted by those who believe that the price of oil will skyrocket as the world supply goes into decline.

Legislation promoting motorcycle use is not likely, most politicians don't like bikes.

[Ocean1]

They didn't ignore it, it's completely irrelevant. They were looking at the effect the particular number of bikes had on that stretch of road.

I think Honda and BMW, there may be others, are preparing for the scenario predicted by those who believe that the price of oil will skyrocket as the world supply goes into decline.

Legislation promoting motorcycle use is not likely, most politicians don't like bikes.

Got a link to that paper P?

I read something in a paper a while ago which made reference to something like that. In that case traffic engineers had modelled different percentages of bike use. One of the revelations was that, although a bike takes up a position on the road the same as a car and therefore contributes to the congestion as much as a car, when the traffic stops the bikes all disappeared. Took them a while to work out why, but the upshot was that a 2% increase in bike use had a disproportionate effect on travel times.

[pritch]

Got a link to that paper P?

I read something in a paper a while ago which made reference to something like that. In that case traffic engineers had modelled different percentages of bike use. One of the revelations was that, although a bike takes up a position on the road the same as a car and therefore contributes to the congestion as much as a car, when the traffic stops the bikes all disappeared. Took them a while to work out why, but the upshot was that a 2% increase in bike use had a disproportionate effect on travel times.

That sounds like the one. The original news item was posted on KB, (possibly more than once?) the search facility should find it.
If you were better than me at entering appropriate search terms?

[98tls]

Some excellent research out, from the overseas, shows that commuting by motorbike is good for _everyone_.

Cuts down car emissions, traffic jam time, etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...-everyone.html


-----

So, we get this in front of as many people as possible (including councils, perhaps), and get the cagers to stop trying to kill us :P

Or simply stop commuting on a motorcycle would go a long way to ensuring a healthy future,cagers dont much care if they do kill you,they if its there fault lose there licence for 6 months and thats that.Have done it long ago found it both boring and very restrictive,pretty much the opposite to the very reasons i love motorcycles.No surprise its an English article,a great day out on a bike there would mean only slightly congested roads and speed cameras every second km.

[davereid]

No one buys efficient motorcycles in our society (as far as the manufacturers are concerned the numbers are so small they may as well be zero), and those that do are viewed as weird, deficient and fundamentally unmanly..

I used to run a scooter shop. Its not just beards and sandles that buy scooters and motorcycles designed to be cheap economical transport. Id suggest a quick look at a commuter motorcycle park in central Wellington might reveal that the real motorcyclist that you see on a superbike on a sunny sunday, is not the real motorcyclist that commutes every day rain hail or shine.

Those central motorcycle parks have a few super-bikes in them, but they are always full of smaller scooters, singles and twins.

You are right that you may not get everyone onto a motorcycle. But then again, you wont get everyone onto public transport either. I for one have no interest in paying too much, to go from not quite where I am, to not quite where I want to go, at a time that doesn't suit with people I don't like.

But you are wrong to say that motorcycles are less efficient than cars and more pollutant.

SOME motorcycles are. SOME are not.

The old generation of fuel efficient motorcycles never went away. Honda Suzuki, BMW etc never stopped building them, they just didn't apply themselves particularly hard either. You have always been able to buy a GB400, FT500, F650, CB125 etc etc etc, they never stopped making different variations on the fuel efficient cheap theme.

The next generation will be adding decent emission controls, and manufacturers will be making some real efforts.

Even 8 years ago we had the Peugeot Jetforce in our showroom - a supercharged 75mph, 125cc scooter.

When fuel reaches $10 per litre, public transport will be priced to match.

But Honda already get 180mpg out of the 70mph PX150, and manufacturers have only just turned their sights on motorcycles.

The future for me, like many others will be fuel efficient motorcycles.

[pritch]

No surprise its an English article,a great day out on a bike there would mean only slightly congested roads and speed cameras every second km.

Thanks for that. It's an English article but the research was done in Belgium on the motorway between Leuven and Brussels.
That name Leuven rings a bell, seen that before. Perhaps I'll enjoy a Stella while I think aout that?